Talk

Advanced search

Policewatch Thread

(23 Posts)
ElephantsAndMiasmas Wed 24-Nov-10 00:31:45

Just reading another story about a police officer abusing his power to hurt vulnerable women. PC Stephen Mitchell was cleared of rape but found guilty of misconduct.

There seem to be a lot of these kind of cases recently and I thought it might be useful to collect them together in one place.

Sakura Wed 24-Nov-10 00:37:48

good idea to start a collection. LIke a diary of abuses

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 24-Nov-10 00:47:09

I couldn't believe it when the first "not guilty" verdicts came through... angry

Though there's still a tiny hope yet.

StewieGriffinsMom Wed 24-Nov-10 08:42:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ElephantsAndMiasmas Wed 24-Nov-10 12:52:59

Wait up - he's been found guilty on some rape charges today - is it normal to stagger the verdicts over two days like this?

Link here - two counts of rape and three of indecent assault.



But at least the bastard was found guilty. Hope the sentence reflects the terrible things he has done.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 24-Nov-10 12:59:12

I think the results were staggered over three days, not two; but I'm glad they've done him for something at least.

StewieGriffinsMom Wed 24-Nov-10 13:16:21

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

wubblybubbly Wed 24-Nov-10 18:39:35

Just watching this on the local news now.

It seems that the police suspected what was going on and sacked him back in 1997. He was then reinstated on a technicality - ffs angry

"During his trial, it emerged that the force had disciplined him when it was discovered he had sex with a woman he had met as part of his duties, but Mitchell was not dismissed for the offence.

A year earlier, he was also disciplined for looking up his wife's new friends on the force computer after the couple had separated. He was fined three days' wages.

Mitchell was also accused of a serious sexual offence while he was still in the Army."

And this is the type of person supposedly there to keep people safe???

wubblybubbly Wed 24-Nov-10 18:41:16

""During his trial, it emerged that the force had disciplined him when it was discovered he had sex with a woman he had met as part of his duties, but Mitchell was not dismissed for the offence."

That doesn't quite cover it actually. On the local news, they said quite clearly he 'followed' a drunken woman home and 'had sex with her'.

Not quite the same thing hmm

Sakura Thu 25-Nov-10 02:21:40

not the same thing at all

scallopsrgreat Thu 25-Nov-10 13:46:29

Mark Andrews has had his conviction for assaulting Pamela Somerville in custody, quashed.

Popchyk Sun 05-Aug-18 11:57:37

Just bumping this old thread.

Because the guy is out of prison.

Stephen Mitchell was sentenced to two life sentences. And was released after less than 7 years.

Mirror link

Prawnofthepatriarchy Sun 05-Aug-18 14:44:20

This is appalling. Mitchell was identifed as a very dangerous man. He must have influence somewhere.

BoreOfWhabylon Sun 05-Aug-18 15:05:21

Looks like another dodgy parole board decision.

heresyandwitchcraft Sun 05-Aug-18 15:09:34

That is truly disgusting.
"The system will protect you."
Sure....

Waddlelikeapenguin Sun 05-Aug-18 15:29:27

7 years!
He was found guilty of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six cases of misconduct in public office. Detectives believe there were another 14 victims whose evidence was not strong enough to bring to court.

Trial judge Mr Justice Wilkie said: ‘’You will only be released, if at all, if the Parole Board has concluded it is safe and in the public interest for you to be released on public licence.
'That may not be for many years, if for ever.’

SEVEN YEARS

Popchyk Mon 06-Aug-18 11:58:21

BBC link

Yvette Cooper asking for answers on why he was released so early.

Ms Cooper said: "This case is disturbing and incomprehensible.

"For someone who has committed such appalling crimes and been told that they may not be released for many years, if ever, to then be subject to release on parole after only seven-and-a-half years is just impossible to understand.

"We urgently need to know what the Parole Board's reasons were because to most people this really does not look like justice for victims."

Theswaggyotter Mon 06-Aug-18 12:17:12

Wtf. How can anyone possibly think he has been rehabilitated after 7 years in jail following what sounds like a lifetime of raping/ sexually abusing vulnerable women? How long till he gets a nice wee job as a bouncer to ‘look after’ more vulnerable/ drunk women. This is truly shocking

LaSquirrel Mon 06-Aug-18 13:02:18

His trial judge told the officer he was a ruthless sexual predator who might never be let out.
And psychiatric reports said the former soldier was such a high risk to women he should never be released.
(from the Mirror link above)

What the hell are the parole board thinking? The judge tried to keep him in, the shrink said he should never be released, and the parole board ... must be made up of rapists - why else release two serial rapists after a short amount of time?

Where is the justice for women?

failingatlife Tue 07-Aug-18 06:59:54

How can 2 life sentences equate to 7 yrs shockangry. His own daughter was on
ITV news last night saying he is dangerous, & should never be released.

Popchyk Tue 07-Aug-18 09:26:30

One of the issues is that the CPS only charge these people with certain of the offences, in order to present a strong case at court. Presumably the other victims whose cases the CPS do not present are reassured that he is going away for life.

And then he's back out after 7 years. And some of the victims know that he was never charged with the offences against them. Same with Worboys. Charged with 19 offences against 12 victims out of offences on what police say is more than 100 women. Sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection. Was approved for release after 10 years.

The other issue is that a lot of the women are deemed unreliable complainants because of a history of substance abuse and mental health problems, so it is hard to even bring a case in the first place. And Mitchell took full advantage of that.

And then the third obstacle is that it is of course it is very hard to convince a jury of violence against women.

At trial, Mitchell was convicted of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six counts of misconduct in a public office. But he was also cleared of three rapes, two indecent assaults and two counts of misconduct.

So Mitchell was only charged with a fraction of his crimes in the first place. And then he was only found guilty of a fraction of the crimes that he was charged with. And then he only served a fraction of the time that his victims thought he would serve.

It is this constant watering down of the severity of these crimes at every single stage that is so horrible.

LaSquirrel Wed 08-Aug-18 00:51:52

At trial, Mitchell was convicted of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six counts of misconduct in a public office. But he was also cleared of three rapes, two indecent assaults and two counts of misconduct.

Good wrap up Popchyk.

I agree with you failingatlife, watering down TWO life sentences into seven years is bloody shocking, and infuriating.

LaSquirrel Wed 08-Aug-18 06:42:04

Also, SimonBridges:
Less so if that woman is a sex worker.
There were a number of prostitues who went missing where I live. The police did precious little until they turned up dead and there was clearly a serial killer.

The term is "prostituted women". It is not something they 'do' but something done to them, a system they are trapped in. Most (80-85%) would leave immediately if there were other options available to them.

I assume you mean Ipswich. I picked up on that at the second victim (the first got little news coverage). I was working around there at the time the trial was going on, I almost went in, but figured I could not help but shout obscenities from the gallery.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: